“Tagesschau” criticized for a vaccination critic contribution
The SRF has wrongly referred to people as “vaccination critics” and “Covid measures opponents”. A contribution in the “Tagesschau” brought the SRG ombudsman to the scene. The ombudsmen complained about violations of the principle of reasonableness.
A contribution in the “Tagesschau” brought the SRG ombudsman to the scene.
“Tagesschau” and SRF News of German-speaking Switzerland television have wrongly described people as “vaccination critics” and “Covid measures opponents” and thus discredited them. Five people complained. The SRG ombudsman agrees with them in part.
In the “Tagesschau” article and that of SRF News Online “Criminal complaint against Swissmedic” from November 14, a woman allegedly damaged by the mRNA vaccinations – one of the plaintiffs – was interviewed, as the ombudsman of the Swiss Radio and Television Company (SRG) announced on Tuesday evening.
Most of the five complainers therefore criticize the fact that the woman was called a “vaccination critic” in a fader. This designation is incorrect, since the woman had been vaccinated several times.
People who have been vaccinated are referred to as “vaccination critics” several times
It was also complained that the plaintiffs’ lawyers had also been described as a “vaccination critic” and as an “opponent of Covid measures”. This is irrelevant and mood-making information. The lawyer is thus discredited.
The “Tagesschau” editorial team admitted that the term “vaccination critic” for the woman allegedly damaged by the Covid vaccination was misleading, as the ombudsman’s statement went on to say.
The ombudsmen acknowledge the apology and the corrections. However, according to their own statements, the original contributions at the time of broadcast are decisive for their assessment. If someone who has been vaccinated several times is referred to as “vaccination critic”, that is misleading. The ombudsmen see this as a violation of the principle of reasonableness.
breach of fairness
The ombudsmen and the “Tagesschau” editorial team do not agree on whether the statement in the article that the plaintiffs’ lawyer is “a declared opponent of vaccination and corona measures” is permissible. In the context of the article and for reasons of transparency, it is important information for the editors to point out the lawyer’s commitment in connection with the vaccination and the corona measures.
A different look since Monday: This is what the new “Tagesschau” studio looks like(00:17)
For the ombudsmen, on the other hand, it is irrelevant for a lawyer when exercising his mandate how he positions himself on vaccinations. According to the SRG ombudsman, a lawyer represents the interests of clients, regardless of their personal position. The personal attitude has no place in a contribution. Therefore, the contribution violated the principle of appropriateness in this respect as well. (SDA)